There may have been no rule at all in actual practice and someone decided to invent one. Or, the actual practice could have been to Baptize only believers, as is the only case in the Bible, and someone decided to expand it. As you have said, any individual could have and did write error, as judged later. With the primitive communication network in use at the time, couldn't any teaching have spread from village to village as long as it was popular? And then, if a Catholic writer happened to like it and pick up upon it, it is then presumed to have been taught by the Apostles. To me, that is a lot of presumption.
This is like someone today writing about President Nixon. People would be able to verify whether Nixon did this or that. Thus, future readers would learn something about Nixon - presuming that the writer was not contradicted by other authors of that era. We don't see disagreement regarding infant baptism.
I've got another analogy for you. How about the Kennedy assassination? Many people had written very different things about it. Then, there was a "Commission" and a consensus was declared. Many people to this day believe the Warren Commission was a joke. The point is that no one can be sure what the truth is, even though it was "officially" solved. If translated to Catholicism, the Warren Report would have been declared infallible, and anyone disagreeing with it would have been a heretic. No room for disagreement or further study.
Writers on Kennedy enjoyed modern day free speech rights, and the inexpensive ability to publish on a grand scale. What was it like for ancient writers? It seems to me that by comparison, it was only a very few who had the means, either through individual wealth, or the backing of a church or government, to get widely published and to get notoriety. It is possible that was a reason that infant baptism didn't have widely published opponents. It was popular, so the only ones who got the ink were on message.
Councils are to verify what is the true teaching in the face of contradictory teachings.
That sounds exactly like what our Supreme Court does. When different Circuit Courts disagree as to interpretation of a statute or the Constitution, then the SCOTUS verifies the true meaning. Both declare what is the interpretation of the governing document (Constitution or Bible). The only difference is that the SCOTUS is specifically ordained in the Constitution. I don't know where Councils are to be found in the Bible.
Do you have any evidence for that, or is that a desperate to uphold your belief that is not clearly stated in Scriptures? With the primitive communication network in use at the time, couldn't any teaching have spread from village to village as long as it was popular?
So why would the Spirit protect ONLY the writings of the future New Testament, while ignoring what they were taught orally? The Spirit protects ALL of the Apostles' teachings, whether oral or written. One way or another, they will continue as a part of the deposit of faith.
And then, if a Catholic writer happened to like it and pick up upon it, it is then presumed to have been taught by the Apostles. To me, that is a lot of presumption
The Church, infallibly protected by the Spirit, makes it clear to everyone that a belief is part of the Apostolic Tradition and was held as such. Do you realize we can apply the same strictness to the Scriptures themselves and thus discount them (if the Church was not infallible protector of the Apostolic Tradition)?
The point is that no one can be sure what the truth is, even though it was "officially" solved. If translated to Catholicism, the Warren Report would have been declared infallible, and anyone disagreeing with it would have been a heretic. No room for disagreement or further study.
The Church is like its head, divine AND human. It is protected from error by God. IT is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The Warren Report never makes the claim to be infallibly protected by God. Either the Church is correct or it is wildly arrogant. One needs to make that determination. HOWEVER, if one holds the latter, then the New Testament is nothing more than another set of writings written by men whose testimony cannot be trusted.
It is possible that was a reason that infant baptism didn't have widely published opponents. It was popular, so the only ones who got the ink were on message.
Those who explored this human question did not find evidence to support that the Church considered that only adults were to be baptized. Even the Bible never makes that claim.
The only difference is that the SCOTUS is specifically ordained in the Constitution. I don't know where Councils are to be found in the Bible.
I also use that analogy - that the SCOTUS is to the Constitution as the Church is to the Bible. Councils are found in Scripture. Consult Acts 15.
Regards